LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest (April 2024)
Get monthly updates on landmark decisions on Consitution, Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Laws, Company Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Criminal Law, Marriage and Divorce laws, and much more in one place with LatestLaws.com's Monthly Digest, for you exclusively! Stay updated, Good People with LatestLaws.com!
A. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
1. Bombay High Court Holds: Mere PF Contribution doesn't imply employer-employee relationship
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that a mere contribution to the Provident Fund does not ipso facto make someone an employer. A bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne further clarified that even preparing an accident report and providing necessary medical treatment was a basic gesture and did not establish an employer-employee relationship.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a bench comprising Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Amanullah while dealing with a claim of forceful resignation by a person claiming to be a workman while performing a managerial role in the absence of power to appoint or dismiss employees held that such could not be the basis to regard someone as a ‘workman’ as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cautioning against the expansion of the scope of the same.
The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that when the Officials intend to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the delinquent employee, as a matter of right, is entitled to be supplied with every piece of material document which the Respondent Authorities intend to consider and pitch against the Writ Petitioner.
B. ARBITRATION
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 7th July 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge vide which it rejected the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Section 5 of the Act of 1996, held that the petitioner/defendant filed the certified copy of the original agreement duly attested by the Notary Public which in terms of the law cannot be said to be a not duly certified copy of the original agreement as required under the provision of the Act.
The division judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that the language of Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act is very clear, and it casts upon an obligation upon the parties to the agreement to refer any of their disputes to the Arbitrator.
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a review application filed by the Applicant seeking review of an order dated 1 December 2022 passed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that an arbitration clause cannot be deemed to have been incorporated by way of a subsequent Circular unless it is specifically referred to and included in the original agreement between the parties.
The Allahabad High Court, while rejecting an appeal challenging the arbitral award after more than four years observed that the period of filing of application under Section 34 against the arbitral award is 90days with a grace period of 30 days, whereas the appellants had approached the Commercial Court after a delay of 4 years and 9 months.
C. CIVIL LAW CASES
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clarified that the questions of title could only be determined by civil court of competent jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of HMJ Vikram Nath and HMJ Satish Chandra Sharma further reiterated that revenue records were not documents of title and that the findings during Revenue Proceedings do not confer any rights, title or interest.
The Supreme Court of India, through the Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, expounded that "The Power of Attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transaction cannot be examined as a witness. The functions of the General Power of Attorney holder cannot be delegated to any other person without there being a specific clause permitting such delegation in the Power of Attorney; meaning thereby ordinarily there cannot be any sub-delegation".
The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that when the Sub-Registrar is satisfied that requisite stamp duty has been deposited by the purchaser or the seller then, he is duty bound to execute and register the sale deed.
The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that mere granting permission to file a document does not amount to acceptance of the veracity of the contents of the document. While deciding an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, the court is not required to go into evaluation of the evidence sought to be produced through that document. Even if genuineness of a document is denied by the other side objecting to receive a document in evidence as forged document, the same cannot be a ground.
The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed against an order dated 7th December 2020 passed by the Learned Civil Judge in a title suit, held that no reason was assigned as to why the other part of the amendment is liable to be disallowed and it caused perversity in the order impugned.
The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court refused to condone the delay of approximately 2 years and 5 months in reviving the execution case while holding that if the execution case is kept pending beyond six months, the Executing Court has to record reasons as to why the decree has not been executed by that time.
D. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW CASES
The Supreme Court held that the time spent diligently pursuing a matter before the wrong forum was bound to be excluded while computing the limitation period. The Court therefore allowed the instant appeal and restored the execution application before the Munsiff Court, to be considered afresh.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India refused to condone a delay of 12 years and 158 days since the Union of India could not prove reasonable diligence in prosecuting the matter but sought the matter to be heard for the sake of ‘very good case on merits’.
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices Aniruddha Bose and JB Pardiwala remarked that “We should not keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of the respondent for an indefinite period of time to be determined at the whims and fancies of the appellants.” The Court also importantly clarified that the litigant being a private party or a State or Union of India did not matter much when it came to condoning gross delay of more than 12 years.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India recently recognized the right to a healthy environment free from adverse effects of climate change as per the Constitution of India. The Bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, HMJ JB Pardiwala and HMJ Manoj Misra recalled the Court’s decision dated 19.04.2021 in M.K. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union of India, 2021 Latest Caselaw 207 SC regarding blanket prohibition on overhead transmission lines and constituted another Expert Committee to strike a balance between environmental conservation against climate change and sustainable development.
The Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar expounded that, "High Court ought not to reappreciate evidence and substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal, it would not be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court in its power of judicial review to altogether eschew such a process".
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a criminal revision petition filed against the judgment passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby affirming the judgment that convicted the present petitioner and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for the offense punishable u/s 26(i) (e) (f) of Indian Forest Act 1927, held that Section 72 (2) of the Forest Act does not impose the statutory presumption upon the Court to hold that the statement recorded by the Forest officers during the inquiry would admit to be proved in the subsequent trial.
The Patna High Court, while allowing an appeal filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant herein for interest over the delayed payment of retiral benefits/dues was not acceded to, held that denial of interest over the delayed payment of due pension and gratuity would cause a miscarriage of justice.
E. CRIMINAL LAW CASES
1. Supreme Court enunciates: Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India called for action against the erring police officials accused of tutoring prosecution witnesses in a murder case. The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal acquitted the two murder accused while taking note of having 10 years of incarceration before being released on bail.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed and set aside FIR and criminal proceedings pertaining to rape case taking note that bitterness led to the said FIR, and that the accused and victim were in a live-in relationship, and their marriage was solemnized even before the said FIR was registered.
The Bench of Justice Ranjan Sharma with the help of a catena of cases further laid down the principles to be followed by Court while dealing with pleas seeking to quash criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable sexual offences based on compromise.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court expounded that whensoever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations after fully understanding the consequences of such action, the ‘consent’ cannot be said to be based on misconception of fact until and unless there is clear evidence that a false promise with no intention of upholding the same was given by the maker at the time of making the promise. The said promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in sexual act.
The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a petition filed by the petitioner to quash the order passed by the learned Special Judge vide which it took cognizance of the offense on the ground that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused persons, held that unless there is a specific order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC passed by the Magistrate/Special Judge, directing the police authority to treat the complaint as an FIR and register a specific case, any complaint sent for inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC cannot be registered as FIR.
The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to grant bail to the Accused person involved in the offense punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act while holding that where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the Accused would indulge in activities that are lethal to the society.
The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that mere delay in holding a test identification parade can’t be sufficient to discard the TIP as well as the evidence of the ocular witnesses. The TIP is in the nature of the corroborative piece of evidence and not the substantive evidence.
F. FAMILY LAW CASES
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India through the Division Bench of HMJ Aniruddha Bose and HMJ Sudhanshu Dhulia held that a widow who remarried lacked rights in the property of first husband, and the said rights could not be conveyed to another.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that mere existence of a marital relationship between the litigating parties howsoever tangential cannot be the basis or the foundation for the proceedings being brought before a Family Court. The Bench opined that an assertion of a particular suit or proceeding being liable to be tried exclusively by the Family Court would succeed only if it is established that there is a direct nexus between the cause of action and the marital relationship. If cause of action is independent of the marital relationship, the matter would be outside the purview of the family court.
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner, accused under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, held that when an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage, the prosecutrix has entered into a compromise and once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stages including for compromise.
The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to the petitioner, accused under the POCSO Act observed that a false depiction of a victim as a minor in POCSO Act cases is an abuse of the process of court and further stated that a Medical Report determining the age of a POCSO Act offence is an imperative requirement of law and an absolute necessity of justice.
The Allahabad High Court in a petition filed by a married daughter seeking compassionate appointment held that brothers being in government service and mothers receiving pension were not a bar of petitioner (married daughter) seeking compassionate appointment.
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing a petition seeking issuance of habeas corpus for visitation rights for a one-month-old infant held that a writ of habeas corpus, as has been consistently held, though a writ of right is not to be issued as a matter of course, particularly when the writ is sought against a parent for the custody of a child.
G. INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE (IBC)
1. NCLAT, New Delhi: Extension of time does not amount to modification of resolution plan
The NCLAT, Principal Bench New Delhi opined that that the NCLT has jurisdiction to grant extension of timeline in making the payment in a Resolution Plan and the view of the NCLT that granting of extension of the timeline is modification of the terms of the Resolution Plan is not a correct view.
Further, for extension of timeline it is not necessary that CoC should express its concurrence, only then the NCLT can exercise its jurisdiction. Granting extension of time in payment as per Resolution Plan for implementation of the Resolution Plan, appropriate jurisdiction is always vested with the NCLT to pass appropriate order.
The Allahabad High Court held that on commencement of the insolvency resolution process, the moratorium u/s 14 of I.B.C. prohibiting the proceeding u/s 138/141 N.I. Act will be applicable only against the corporate debtor and not against the natural persons like the directors of the company for their vicarious liability.
The NCLT, Kolkata Bench allowed application preferred for orders and directions with regard to meetings of shareholders and creditors in connection with the Scheme of Arrangement between ITC Limited (Demerged Company) and ITC Hotels Limited (Resulting Company).
Picture Source :
